Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:48 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 08 B: Teacher Leadership & Professional Learning
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** How School Leaders Retain Experienced and Capable Teacher Mentors 1: University College London, United Kingdom; 2: University of Toronto, Canada; 3: Independent researcher Presenting Author:Focus The purpose for this study was to better understand how those in school leadership positions, using resources in the school, can influence the retention of their school’s experienced and highly capable teachers who are serving as mentors to their less experienced colleagues. The three research questions guiding were as follows:
Context Investing in teachers’ career-long professional development has been regarded by policy makers as a cost-effective approach to retaining committed and capable teachers for the profession (Department for Education (DfE), 2019; RAND, 2021; PBE, 2022; Perry et al., 2022). It remains the case, however, for diverse and complex socio-economic and political reasons, that retaining committed and effective teachers is a real challenge. The site of this study is one of national providers of the Early Career Framework programme (ECF, renamed as Early Career Teacher Entitlement from 2025) for teachers in the first two years of teaching and their mentors. The longitudinal research, of which this study is one component, includes examining the effects of the ECF programme on teacher retention decisions. School leaders with teachers enrolled in the ECF were required to appoint a mentor for them from existing school staff. Once chosen, these mentors received structured additional training over a two-year programme (reduced to one year from 2024) but continued to teach in their schools with funded time provided by the DfE to fulfil their mentor duties. While the primary goal of the ECF was to retain early-career teachers, retaining those teacher mentors (TMs) and ensuring effective mentoring in schools was critical to the achievement of that longer term goal. This study was undertaken to help senior leaders identify conditions in their schools that TMs would consider favourable to their work. Conceptual framing Building on research about the impact of successful leadership on teachers’ work and lives and student outcomes (e.g., Bellibaş et al., 2021; Day & Gurr, 2024), we developed a framework to connect variables in a relatively long, complex and largely unique chain from school leadership to teacher retention. While previous evidence has established a relationship between leadership and teacher retention, our framework explains the complex nature of that relationship. This framework assumes that while teacher mentors play a unique role in their schools, they are part of their school’s teaching staff and are influenced in their retention decisions by most of the same conditions as the rest of their teaching colleagues (e.g., Eleftheriadou et al., 2025; Gu et al., 2023). The framework reflects prior evidence about what motivates staff retention decisions, as well as results from our larger ECF research about what motivates ECF mentors, in particular (Leithwood et al., 2024). In our framework, the most direct influences on TMs’ retention intentions are a small number of personal resources and psychological states related to both their school and the profession of teaching including self-efficacy, feelings of satisfaction, and sense of well-being. These personal constructs are at least partly a function of a selected set of teacher mentors’ schools’ organizational conditions, the most promising being opportunities to collaborate with other staff, opportunities for continuing their professional learning, as well as beliefs about the manageability of their workload. While senior school leaders are by no means the only influence on these organizational conditions, their influence is typically quite significant (Leithwood, 2019, Day et al., 2024). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Design This study is part of a larger mixed methods study gathering quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of England’s ECF induction programme on participating early-career teachers’ and mentors’ work engagement, well-being, and retention trajectories over time. The cross-sectional study reported in this paper used results from the first annual survey of teacher mentors (TMs). Participants Respondents included in the study were a sample of TMs in the first year of the two-year ECF programme. Survey invitations were sent to all TMs who were active in the programme (N = 5853). A total of 810 TMs responded, representing 14% response rate. There are two reasons to be confident about the external validity of the findings. First, demographic characteristics of the sample are broadly representative of national figures for TMs regarding gender, ethnicity, contract types, and school phase. Second, post hoc power analysis indicated our sample retained 99% power to reject a mis-specified model with RMSEA = 0.06 with α = 0.05 and df = 1929. The results of this research should therefore be highly relevant to the experiences of the national TM population. Instruments The survey comprised 66 questions plus demographic data. Responses were rated on a Likert scale of 1-6, with 1 the least positive response and 6 the most positive response. The measurement of each key construct is informed by the synthesis of the latest research and grounded also in the survey research led by authors in different country contexts over twenty years. Together, they provide a secure knowledge and empirical base for the study to develop a reliable survey instrument which is fit for purpose. The outcome variable was teacher destinations (recoded into 1=staying, 2=moving, 3=leaving teaching). Data analysis Data were analysed using a structural equation model (SEM) in R Studio version 4.3.1 (RStudio Team, 2020) using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). The SEM model explored the effects of programme-related factors, school-related factors and personal dispositions upon TMs’ retention decisions. Model fit was assessed as good across twenty imputed data sets with model fit indices of a CFI and TLI of 0.99 across all data sets, a RMSEA value of maximum value 0.038 and SRMR 0.055. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results Research Question 1: Influence of Personal Resources (Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, Well-Being) on TMs’ Retention Decisions Variation in Job Satisfaction and Well-Being explained a small but significant amount of variation in TMs’ retention decisions. These decisions were most directly influenced by TMs’ sense of job satisfaction and well-being at school. The most direct influence on TMs’ sense of Well-Being at school was their Job Satisfaction at school. Research Question 2: Organizational Conditions Which Influence TMs’ Personal Resources Collaborative School Culture had a moderately strong, direct influence on TMs’ job satisfaction at school and was influenced moderately strongly by Professional Growth Opportunities. Collaborative School Culture had no influence on other school conditions and was only influenced by Professional Learning Opportunities and Leadership Practices. TMs’ perception of their workload conditions was a third variable linking Leadership to Job Satisfaction and Well-Being with a moderate but direct influence on TMs’ Job Satisfaction at school. Research Question 3: Leadership Practices Positively Associated with Key Organizational Conditions The conception of leadership guiding our study included four categories or domains of practices–Setting Directions, Building Relationships and Developing People, Redesigning the Organization, and Improving the Teaching Programme. Each of these domains were linked, uniquely, through Job Satisfaction and Well-Being, to TM retention. Scholarly significance School leaders retain high-quality staff members by helping to create productive work environments aimed at achieving ambitious, socially valued goals for all students. Given similar student populations, a high-retention school for experienced teachers is doing many things well, and a low-retention school not so much. This conclusion, we hasten to add, does not add to the work of already harried school leaders. The leadership practices that encourage staff retention are the same approaches that are needed for many other forms of significant school improvement. References Bellibaş, M. Ş., Kılınç, A. Ç., & Polatcan, M. (2021). The moderation role of transformational leadership in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning and instructional practice: An integrated leadership perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(5), 776–814. Day, C., & Gurr, D. (Eds.). (2024). How successful schools are more than effective: Principals who build and sustain teacher and student wellbeing and achievement. Springer. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Ylimaki, R. (2024). Educational research and the quality of successful school leadership. UNESCO. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391537 Department for Education. (2019). Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786856/DFE_Teacher_Retention_Strategy_Report.pdf Eleftheriadou, S., Gu, Q., & Shao, X. (2025). Developing and retaining talented mentors as the signature pedagogy for school leaders. London Review of Education, 23(1), 19. Gu, Q., Eleftheriadou, S., & Baines, L. (2023). The impact of the Early Career Framework (ECF) programme on the work engagement, wellbeing and retention of teachers: A longitudinal study, 2021–2026. Interim research report 2: Early career teachers’ and mentors’ reported experiences with the ECF programme. UCL Centre for Educational Leadership. Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10177976/1/ECF%20Research%20Report%20%232_Full%20Report.pdf Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Eleftheriadou, S., & Baines, L. (2024). Developing and retaining talented mentors. Interim Research Report 3. UCL Centre for Educational Leadership. Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10188153/1/ECF%20Mentor%20Research%20Report_2024_Final.pdf Leithwood, K. (2019). Characteristics of effective leadership networks: A replication and extension. School Leadership & Management, 39(2), 175–197. Perry, E., Halliday, J., Higginson, J., & Patel, S. (2022). Meeting the Challenge of Providing High-quality Continuing Professional Development for Teachers. London: Wellcome. Pro Bono Economics (PBE) (2022). Learning to Save: Teacher CPD as a Cost-Effective Approach to Improving Retention. London: Pro Bono Economics. RAND (2021). Understanding Teacher Retention: Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to measure Teacher Retention in England. Cambridge: Office for Manpower Economics. RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/ Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Institutional Environment for Teaching and Teacher Job Satisfaction: The Interconnected Roles of Autonomy, Teaching Practices, and Self-Efficacy 1: University "Ukshin Hoti" Prizren, Kosovo; 2: University of Prishtina; 3: University of Ljubljana Presenting Author:INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study aims to provide insights into the debate on how the institutional environment for teaching in schools contributes to increased and sustained job satisfaction within the functions teachers enact at the school level in a system undergoing transition. Furthermore, this study aims to explore the interaction and mediating roles that autonomy, teaching practices, and self-efficacy have in this relationship. In post-conflict and transition education systems, these organizational, professional, and instructional dynamics are particularly salient, as teachers must adapt their daily practice while maintaining motivation and job satisfaction. However, empirical evidence examining these dynamics as interconnected mechanisms rather than isolated factors remains limited in such contexts, despite growing attention to these relationships in more advanced education systems (Hoque et al., 2023; Waternberg et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025; Xu et al., 2025). Kosovo represents a particularly relevant case for examining these relationships. Following the 1999 conflict, the education system faced substantial challenges related to rebuilding institutional capacity, improving teachers’ working conditions, and strengthening professionalism. Enhancing teachers’ motivation, job satisfaction, autonomy, and professional competence has remained a central focus of education reform (Saqipi, 2019). Accordingly, this study conceptualizes these variables based on the TALIS 2024 conceptualization: institutional environment for teaching as a multidimensional construct comprising teacher leadership, teacher–student relationships, relational leadership, and instructional leadership; job satisfaction as encompassing joy of teaching and satisfaction with the profession; autonomy as a distinct construct; teaching practices as clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom management; and self-efficacy as self-efficacy in instruction, engagement, and classroom management (OECD, 2025). Within this framework, schools are understood as complex organizational systems in which leadership practices, relational climates, and instructional expectations dynamically interact, shaping teachers’ daily work, professional agency, and psychological resources (Nabella et al., 2022; Freeman & Fields, 2023). By integrating this model, which explains how these constructs interact-particularly in post-transition and reform-intensive contexts such as Kosovo-this study provides theoretically grounded and context-sensitive evidence on their relationships, offering important implications for school leadership, professional development, and policymaking in Kosovo and comparable education systems. This study’s conceptual model is grounded in an integrated theoretical framework drawing on the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997), and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Within this framework, job satisfaction is conceptualized as the outcome of dynamic interactions between the institutional environment for teaching and the mediating roles of autonomy, teaching practices, and teacher self-efficacy. From a JD–R perspective, institutional environments for teaching reflected in school leadership and school climate operate as key job resources that reduce strain and foster satisfaction. Self-Determination Theory further explains how supportive institutional conditions satisfy teachers’ basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence, thereby strengthening intrinsic motivation and positive work-related attitudes. Complementing this view, Social Cognitive Theory highlights the role of self-efficacy as a central psychological mechanism through which environmental conditions influence teachers’ beliefs in their instructional capabilities, shaping both pedagogical behavior and satisfaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 1985; OECD, 2025). Furthermore, the study seeks to answer the following research questions : RQ1: What is the impact of institutional environment for teaching on teachers’ job satisfaction and what is the mediating role of autonomy, teaching practices, and self-efficacy in this relationship? RQ2: What’s the impact of teaching autonomy, teaching practices, and self-efficacy on teachers’ job satisfaction? RQ3: What’s the impact of the institutional environment for teaching in the teacher’s autonomy, teaching practices, and self-efficacy ? RQ4: What’s the impact of teachers’ autonomy on teaching practices and self-efficacy ? RQ5: What’s the impact of teaching practices on teacher’s self-efficacy Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used METHODOLOGY This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research design using secondary survey data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024. The data were drawn from the Kosovo national sample of TALIS 2024, administered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Kosovo dataset used in this study comprised teachers employed in public schools. INSTRUMENTS Institutional Environment for Teaching- was measured using items capturing teacher leadership, teacher–student relationships, relational leadership, and instructional leadership. Teaching Practices- were assessed through items reflecting clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom management. Teacher Self-efficacy- was measured using items addressing self-efficacy in classroom management, self-efficacy in student engagement, and self-efficacy in instruction. Autonomy- was measured through five items addressing teachers’ autonomy. Job Satisfaction-was measured using items capturing job satisfaction and joy of teaching. DATA ANALYSIS As part of the data analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using Mplus version 8.11 to test the hypothesized relationships among the constructs. Missing data, coded as –999, were handled using full information maximum likelihood (ML). Following standard measurement procedures, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted to evaluate the structure of each construct separately and to identify indicators with insufficient or negative factor loadings. Criteria for indicator exclusion included standardized loadings below 0.40 and negative loadings, ensuring that only indicators that meaningfully contributed to their respective constructs were retained (Hair, 2009). After confirming the individual measurement structures, a confirmatory factor analysis of the full measurement model was conducted, including the five main constructs: institutional environment for teaching, autonomy, teaching practices, teachers’ self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated as a preliminary step. The structural model tested direct and indirect effects through mediation analyses. Indirect effects were assessed using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples to generate 95% confidence intervals. Model fit was evaluated and showed an acceptable fit (Chi-square test of model fit = 4.1, RMSEA = .031, CFI = .936, TLI = .932, SRMR = .047). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings FINDINGS The results of this study reveal that institutional environment for teacher impacts teachers’ job satisfaction individually and by a complex interaction of institutional, instructional, and psychological factor. Direct effects indicated that institutional environment, teaching practices, self-efficacy, and autonomy all contributed positively to job satisfaction, although their magnitudes varied. Institutional environments showed the strongest direct association, highlighting their central role in shaping teachers’ job satisfaction. Teaching practices and self-efficacy also demonstrated substantial positive associations with job satisfaction, suggesting that teachers derive satisfaction not only from favorable working conditions but also from their capacity to teach effectively and feel competent in their professional roles. Autonomy exhibited a smaller yet significant effect, indicating that decision-making freedom contributes to satisfaction but is not sufficient on its own. Importantly, the findings reveal that institutional environment for teaching influence job satisfaction through multiple indirect pathways. Autonomy, teaching practices, and self-efficacy each functioned as significant mediators, including a sequential pathway linking institutional environments to job satisfaction. This pattern highlights the interconnected mechanisms through which institutional conditions shape both instructional processes and teachers’ psychological resources. While autonomy did not directly predict self-efficacy, it strongly influenced teaching practices, which in turn played a key role in strengthening teachers’ efficacy beliefs. This suggests that autonomy becomes meaningful when it is translated into concrete instructional action. Taken together, the findings suggest that Institutional environment for teaching impacts teachers’ job satisfaction through coherent institutional development and mechanisms rather than fragmented or individual-level interventions. Supportive institutional environments create the conditions under which autonomy can enhance teaching practices, teaching practices can strengthen self-efficacy, and self-efficacy can reinforce satisfaction with the profession. In post-transition and reform-intensive contexts such as Kosovo, where school-level autonomy and leadership capacity remain constrained, these results highlight the need to prioritize institutional strengthening as a foundation for teacher satisfaction. References REFERENCES Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. Freeman, G. T., & Fields, D. (2023). School leadership in an urban context: Complicating notions of effective principal leadership, organizational setting, and teacher commitment to students. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(2), 318-338. Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Hoque, K. E., Wang, X., Qi, Y., & Norzan, N. (2023). The factors associated with teachers’ job satisfaction and their impacts on students’ achievement: a review (2010–2021). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-7. Li, L., Kanchanapoom, K., Deeprasert, J., Duan, N., & Qi, Z. (2025). Unveiling the factors shaping teacher job performance: exploring the interplay of personality traits, perceived organizational support, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. BMC psychology, 13(1), 14. Nabella, S. D., Rivaldo, Y., Kurniawan, R., Nurmayunita, N., Sari, D. P., Luran, M. F., & Wulandari, K. (2022). The influence of leadership and organizational culture mediated by organizational climate on governance at senior high school in Batam City. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 12(5), 119-130. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD. (2025). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 conceptual framework. OECD Publishing. Saqipi, B. (2019). Understanding the relation of policy discourse and re-conceptualising curriculum: A Kosovo perspective on a new meaning of context. CEPS Journal, 9(2), 33-52. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper From Leaders to Teachers: How School Leadership Relates to Identification, Citizenship Behavior, and Turnover Intentions Over Time University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland Presenting Author:Schools depend not only on teachers’ and school leaders’ role performance but also on their psychological attachment to the school and their willingness to contribute beyond contractual requirements. Two constructs that capture these processes are organizational identification (OI) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OI refers to the degree to which individuals define themselves in terms of their membership in the organization and internalize its goals and values (Blader et al., 2017), whereas OCB describes discretionary behaviors that support the social and psychological processes within an organization (Organ, 1997). Across occupational settings, identification is considered a key motivational mechanism underlying extra-role effort. Meta-analyses and reviews consistently show positive associations between OI and prosocial workplace behaviors (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005). In school contexts, similar patterns have been documented. Teachers with stronger identification report higher levels of helping, cooperation, and school-oriented citizenship behaviors (Christ et al., 2003; Demir, 2015; Van Dick et al., 2006). However, nearly all evidence is cross-sectional. Consequently, it remains unclear whether identification fosters later citizenship behavior—as theory implies—or whether engaging in OCB subsequently strengthens identification through self-perception or reciprocity processes. Clarifying the directionality of these effects is therefore a key unresolved issue. A second gap concerns the role of leadership. Schools are multilevel organizations in which leaders shape shared meanings, norms, and working conditions. Identity-based leadership theories propose that leaders function as sensegivers who influence followers’ identification. Studies in both school and non-school contexts report positive associations between leader and follower OI (Schuh et al., 2012; Van Dick et al., 2007). Yet, these studies do not examine reciprocal or longitudinal dynamics. As a result, we do not know whether leaders’ identification shapes teachers’ identification over time, whether teachers’ attitudes influence leaders, or whether both processes unfold simultaneously. Similarly, little is known about how leaders’ and teachers’ citizenship behaviors are connected. OCB has been theorized to spread through modeling and social learning, implying a trickle-down effect from leaders to followers. Somech and Ohayon (2020) provide initial support for such cross-level associations in schools, whereas findings from other sectors did not find such relationships (Krishnan & Arora, 2008). Moreover, existing studies rely on single-wave designs, preventing conclusions about temporal or causal relationships. Whether leader OCB precedes teacher OCB, or whether both reflect shared contextual influences, remains unresolved. Another important but understudied mechanism concerns mediation. Leadership research suggests that leader behaviors influence follower outcomes indirectly through psychological states such as identification (Schuh et al., 2012; Van Dick et al., 2007). Yet, these few studies do not simultaneously examine OI and OCB both at the two levels (teachers and school leaders) within one integrated model. Finally, although both OI and OCB are assumed to promote retention, the relative strength and direction of these relationships remain unclear. Identification has been linked to lower turnover intentions among teachers and other employees (Li & Yao, 2022; Sandmeier & Mühlhausen, 2020; Van Dick et al., 2004), but effects may differ across hierarchical roles (Cole & Bruch, 2006). Evidence for OCB is even scarcer and largely indirect. Thus, it is still uncertain whether attitudinal attachment (OI) or enacted extra-role behavior (OCB) is more predictive of staying decisions for teachers and leaders. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study draws on survey data from approximately 4,000 teachers and 250 school leaders across around 180 Swiss schools. Data were collected via standardized online questionnaires at three measurement occasions for teachers and two for school leaders, enabling the examination of temporal dynamics across one school year. Both teachers and school leaders reported on their OI, OCB, and turnover intentions, alongside relevant contextual and psychological covari-ates. The data exhibit a hierarchical structure, with teachers nested within schools and school leaders representing the leadership level of each organization. To appropriately account for this dependency and to simultaneously examine relationships within and across organizational levels, multilevel modeling techniques are applied. Specifically, teachers constitute Level 1, leaders represent Level 2, and schools form the higher-level organizational context. This structure allows us to estimate (a) within-level associations (e.g., teacher OI–teacher OCB), (b) cross-level relationships between leaders and teachers (e.g., leader OI predicting teacher OI), and (c) contextual school-level effects. To address questions of directionality and move beyond cross-sectional associations, the longitudinal design is leveraged using time-lagged analyses. Cross-lagged paths between different measurement points are estimated while controlling for stability effects of the respective constructs. This approach allows us to test whether earlier identification predicts later citizenship behavior (and vice versa), and whether leader variables temporally precede changes in teacher outcomes, thereby providing indications of potential causal mechanisms. Although causal inference cannot be established definitively in non-experimental designs, this strategy strengthens conclusions about temporal ordering. All models control for additional theoretically relevant organizational and individual factors that may confound the focal relationships, including perceived procedural justice, school leadership style, teacher self-efficacy, and perceived organizational support. Including these covariates enables a more conservative test of the unique contributions of OI and OCB. Missing data are handled using full-information maximum likelihood estimation to retain cases across waves. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The following findings should be considered preliminary, as they are based on initial regression analyses and do not yet incorporate the planned longitudinal models with autoregressive con-trols and competing cross-lagged paths needed to draw conclusions about directional or rela-tionships. Cross-level regressions (leaders → teacher school means) indicated generally small effects (R² mostly < .10) but two consistent patterns. First, leader variables were most clearly linked to teacher OI: leader OI predicted teacher OI across waves (βs ≈ .11–.14, ps ≤ .013), and leader OCB also related positively to teacher OI across waves (βs ≈ .10–.15, ps ≤ .01). Second, leader with-drawal showed the strongest cross-level signal: leaders’ intention to leave the school predicted higher teacher turnover intentions (leaving school and profession; βs ≈ .05–.11, ps ≤ .046) and lower teacher OI at later waves (βs ≈ −.06, ps ≈ .02–.05). In contrast, evidence for behavioral “trickle-down” was limited: leader OCB did not predict teacher OCB, and leader OI showed only a small association with teacher OCB at one timepoint (β ≈ .08). Within school leaders, OI and OCB were tightly coupled and highly stable. Leader OI predicted leader OCB (t1→t2: β = .35, p < .001) and vice versa (t1→t2: β = .26, p = .002). However, direct links from leader OI/OCB to leaders’ turnover intentions were not robust. Within teachers, effects were dominated by strong stability and the central role of OI. Teacher OI related positively to teacher OCB (βs ≈ .31–.36, ps < .001) and strongly negatively to intentions to leave the school and profession across waves (βs ≈ −.31 to −.86, ps ≤ .001). Associations between teacher OCB and turnover were smaller and less consistent (especially for leaving the school). References Christ, O., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322275867 Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.378 Demir, K. (2015). Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Organizational Identification in Public and Private Preschools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France, 174, 1176–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.734 Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012 Li, R., & Yao, M. (2022). What promotes teachers’ turnover intention? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100477 Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005 Sandmeier, A., & Mühlhausen, J. (2020). Was hält Lehrpersonen in der Schule? (WahLiS-Studie). Belastungen und Ressourcen auf Schulebene. Pädagogische Hochschule Schwyz. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3595206 Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., Egold, N. W., Graf, M. M., Pandey, D., & van Dick, R. (2012). Leader and follower organizational identification: The mediating role of leader behaviour and implications for follower OCB. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02044.x Somech, A., & Ohayon, B.-E. (2020). The trickle-down effect of OCB in schools: The link between leader OCB and team OCB. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(6), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2019-0056 Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Höhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the Extra Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x Van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X71831 | ||